the following text is translated from german via babelfish and corrected afterwards. Sorry for some unusual english words and phrases But my time is limited and the text is complicated...

These game suggestions were discussed in a german thread and mailed to DoW by me. DoW suggests to post my ideas on the english forum, so, here they are:

--------------------------------------------------
Hello, team of Days Of Wonder.

First one thick praise for your games and above all your on-line offer. This concept has future. Above all the on-line version of ticket to ride is very well converted and a full success. Nevertheless even a good product can be still improved. In the following improvement/change suggestions for ticket to ride online are presented, which were already discussed in this Forumsthread (http://www.daysofwonder.com/index.php?t=msg&th=4757), with active participation of some Top players. The suggestions are sorted according to importance and feasibility. Improvements, which would be to be introduced without larger expenditure, are first specified. With suggestions which can be converted onlay with difficulty, if possible, an alternative proposal is presented. With all ideas the motivation is described behind it.

1. Observing status of a game visibly.

In the lobby it should be indicated by the options of the open matches whether this game can be observed or not.

Motivation: If a player opens a game, the player specifies whether observing is possible or not. Entering players do not know this however. Since there are many players, who would not like to enter into games, which can be observed (Cheater danger), would be this a helpful additional specification.

Conversion: Short character sequence like "View" under options or its own column with a screen symbol would be sufficient and is not difficult to program.

2. More comfort on the statistics side.

In the list of the played matches it should emerge behind each game whether the original USA game or the European variant was played. In addition the own placing could be specified, which at present -- if one did not win or plays two-player-matches -- is not immediately evident. To all lists for the statistics side it applies (also the rank lists) that a fast navigation would be favourable. At present it is not possible to jump immediately to the end of a list or the n-th unit side.

Motivation: Statistics are for looking at and should be clear. The more information the better.

Conversion: Almost any InterNet side with longer lists offers high-speed navigation over pre and back symbols as well as page numbers. The implementation of such a construct is trivial. The indication of some additional information should be also no problem, except the servers stores not whether the USA or Europe was played (this would be then additionally necessary).

3. The introduction of free games. Most important point!

It should be possible with each player opening to start a "free" game. Free games are games, which do not count for the rank list.

Motivation: In ticket to ride on-line there are two play groups, which are irreconcilably opposite. Those are the blockers and the non-blockers. Players of the block fraction value in most cases gaining points on a rank list, those of the non-blocking group not. Players, who the rank list did not mean anything, could open free games, which were not visited with a high probability by blockers. In addition, rank list players and Top players would surely welcome the possibility of being able to play free games without pressure. They could try new strategies. They could play Europe, if they specialized in the USA and vice versa. And they could play games just for fun without sophisticated tactics and blocking. Most on-line games (e.g. also chess servers) offer this possibility. Not each game must flow nevertheless inevitably into a valuation. Free games could be played also without Karmalimit.

Conversion: In the game opening and in the overview a further option would have to emerge (free game), which must be clicked (standard remains rank list game). That is the whole expenditure. Free games were not taken into consideration after completion of the match and/or were not stored on the server. They do not have to emerge inevitably in the history of the matches. If this is possible, they should be marked there. Note! The introduction of free games offers further advantages, more to come.

4. Do not accept guests.

A player can indicate for the game opening whether guests are certified or not.

Motivation: This is a difficult topic, since it is subject easily to the reproach of "discrimination".

There are however some points, which speak for it: Guests can be used much more easily for cheating than registered players. Guests can not be controlled socially. If they become closed out, they appear under new account. Their points of rank list are not shown, what makes them for registered rank list players an uncalculable risk. In numerous Forumthreads Top players stated their dislike to play against guests. There is not probably hardly a player, who would not play against guests, only evenly at any time.

For the conversion there are several possibilities:
a) If free games (see point 3) were implemented, it would be very simple. Guests can participate simply only in free games. That corresponds also to its classification! They are not indicated in the rank list, why they should be supposed to participate thus in rated games? In addition it would be a further motivation to buy a Web code whereby your company would generate additional incomes. As reconciliation you could even permit that guests can start free games. Not to be in the rank list is motivation enough to become a registered player.

b) Guests have a Karmalimit of 80 (four stars). Players, who would not like to play with guests, do not adjust Karma of 4 stars or less and have no problems. Karma of 4 stars is sufficient for participation in most plays loosely. Advantage of this procedure: The changes at the system are not so complex. Alternatively guests can generate more than Karma 80, but do not receive more than four stars. Advantage of this procedure: With an registration the former guests have immediately their correct Karma.

c) There is "NO a Guest" option in game openings. This is the most complex variant and actually also the most discriminating. Not to recommend therefore rather.

5. Multiplayer-rank-list.

It would be beautiful, if there were a rank list for Multiplayer.

Motivation: The two-player-matches and games with several participants differ nevertheless strongly in tactics and point assignment. Nearly all Top players play only two-player-matches. Since ticket to ride is a parlor game, it appears to me, that playing with more persons is the actual heart of the game. In addition it is more difficult to gain a high rank with only Multiplayer matches.

Conversion: This is difficult. Finally three lists on the server would have to be led and stored. A total rank list, a two-player-match-list and a Multiplayer rank list. There is a at least satisfying alternative: For the player profiles simply a percentage should be indicated, which designates the portion of two-player-matches. In this way at least relatively fast a manually provided Multiplayer rank list (like the list provides by member Angel6 aka Angel345) could be published, in which then only players emerge, who play for example 50% or more of their games Multiplayer. This could even be automated.

6. Further not so important suggestions.

a) The introduction of a point filter with the opening of rank list games was already demanded in the English forum. This would be almost obsolet however by the introduction of free games.

b) An ignoring list also in the game. So far this list works only in the forum. There should be however also the possibility of not accepting certain players in a game and/or of getting these players in open matches for example red indicated.

That were all suggestions. Please look at the discussion in the Thread mentioned above and pursue them. Possibly also a new Thread is published in addition.

Yours sincerely (name)
registered player: erps

----------------------------------------------
And the answer:

Hallo (name),

danke fuer Ihre Anfrage.

I'm sorry to answer you in English. My German is really limited right now (but I'm willing to enhance it as soon as I can find some spare time).

I've added your proposals to our internal Zug um Zug wishlist.

Right now, everybody (except me) are on vacation, so I guess we'll discuss your ideas (including in the forum) in the next couple of weeks.

Meanwhile if you speak English, I propose that you can also post your ideas on the English forum and ask to the people there (there are a lot of top ranked players discussing there) what they think about.

I totally agree with the ideas, first of all with the possibility of free games!

Ive another wish concerning the _fun-factor_:

Make it possible to set a timelimit for the whole game. Maybe to choice between 4,5,10 or 15 Minutes and _open end_. I think it would be very interesting to play under the pressure of a ticking clock . I know this from chess, and if it works like i imagine, it will bring much fun and new tactical challenges.

your idea is interesting, but I think it's not so good, because, if the game less 5 min, you can't do the big tickets, so you have to take the small one. You must not take the owle 5min cards , you'll have to build lines very fast.And this is .....
Hey,this is a great idea isn't it?

Let's try to suggest this dow.

Eprs, are you able to send a seccound e-mail to dow ith other suggets?

Make it possible to set a timelimit for the whole game. Maybe to choice between 4,5,10 or 15 Minutes and _open end_. I think it would be very interesting to play under the pressure of a ticking clock .

hi sebbo,

I really love your expression : " the pressure of the ticking clock "
( I'm not stressed enough without any ticking, I'll love it for sure )
but you first have to ask DOW to add the sound of a ticking clock, much more pressure this way

my first question, to be sure , is :

what happens at the end of the time

my second one :
did you think of a little problem ?

I take an example :

in a 5 minute game,it's 4:50, you just played and I see you only miss the 6 whites to complete vancouver montreal

I wait ... I wait .... I wait ... Oooops, I play at 4:59, sorry you can't play

My thrid one :

do you know some players could never try it ?
Some players who need so much thinking in each turn that 5 min is enough for 3 or 4 turns only
(sorry pilke but you're the first one making fun with you slowness in game, no nastiness here )

And there's just one little problem :

what happens in case of bug, deconnection ( when one player CAN'T playing for, sometimes, 1 or 2 min ?)

cu soon sebbo, for another "walk in a garden on a sunny afternoon" ( private joke )

If we take blitz chess as a model, whoever uses up all his/her time loses. See my second answer below.

Quote:

my second one :
did you think of a little problem ?

I take an example :

in a 5 minute game,it's 4:50, you just played and I see you only miss the 6 whites to complete vancouver montreal

I wait ... I wait .... I wait ... Oooops, I play at 4:59, sorry you can't play

In blitz chess, each player gets 5 minutes. Your clock only ticks when it's your turn. Doing fast moves and using your opponent's time to think is a common blitz strategy that will put the pressure on your opponent, since going out of time means losing.

Quote:

And there's just one little problem :

what happens in case of bug, deconnection ( when one player CAN'T playing for, sometimes, 1 or 2 min ?)

That would be the main obstacle to the implementation of this feature... You need a reliable server to be fair in a blitz game.

OK maybe ive to say it more detailed. Indeed i took Chess as a model. So 5 Minutes for the whole game means, that every participant has 5 minutes, and the time runs only for the player whos turn it is.

If one player uses his time up, the game ends and the points will be counted like its used to be.

If there is a bug connection....thats simply bad luck!

And the sound of a ticking clock instead of the enerving tuuuuuuut, thats a very nice idea lea . But next time, i would prefer to climb a cliff then to walk in a garden .

Maybe one have to test it, which of both (losing or end of game and counting) would be the better way.

I really prefer that the player using all his time would lose, in order to prevent the following situation :

one player completing quickly his tickets could then wait and wait and wait, preventing the other one to complete his own ones

For instance:
I have denver el-paso and NY-atalanta,
I complete them as soon as possible ( 8 turns or less)
and then , I stop playing
I can hope that my opponent one didn't complete even one
very intersting way to win, isn't it ?

sebbo écrit le Tue, 16 August 2005 13:01

léachris schrieb am Tue, 16 August 2005 10:06

do you know some players could never try it ?
Some players who need so much thinking in each turn that 5 min is enough for 3 or 4 turns only

That doesnt count as a problem, cause it should only be a feature, like private or open. One can choose between some timelimits or openend, the standard should be set to openend.

I really prefer that the player using all his time would lose, in order to prevent the following situation :

one player completing quickly his tickets could then wait and wait and wait, preventing the other one to complete his own ones

Good point! But that also happens in blitz chess. Its just kind of _time blocking_ . There is no difference for me to normal route blocking. And something similarly already happens: If i try to finish my tickets and claim routes as fast as i can, to prevent the other from finishing first and get longest route.

I think both alternatives are very interesting, and as i said one should simply try it out. Maybe it could be an option, to decide between both?

Quote:

No no no, I don't find it fair !

But how do you want to solve this? Any other solution will open ways for cheater, for example simply leaving the game if they think they will lose. I would suggest, that there will be some kind of placeholder, if one player has an interruption, so that he has the possibility to rejoin. NO DUMBOT, simply a placeholder. But the clock should tick on .

OK maybe ive to say it more detailed. Indeed i took Chess as a model. So 5 Minutes for the whole game means, that every participant has 5 minutes, and the time runs only for the player whos turn it is.

If one player uses his time up, the game ends and the points will be counted like its used to be.

This would be a problem, as explained by leachris. A player could still let his/her time run out to block the opponent. In an ideal blitz, letting time run out should never be a strategical move. So a possibility is that you lose, as in chess. Another possibility is that you stop playing but your opponent keeps playing! until he/she finishes the game or runs out of time too. Scores would then be calculated normally.

I like both ideas. The latter is a little less cruel on the slower player but I don't think it'll change the outcome, unless the game is almost over anyway or the other player is almost out of time too.

or another proposal for the blitz version: the player who runs out of time, loses 15 (or some other number) points, but you still stop and count the points at that time. this way, it's a nice blocking strategy to just get a few points and let the time run out, but you need to have 16 points more than you're opponent to still win the game.
I think it would be interesting to play, but I think we'll have to play these version to know if they are really good.

many people know it here, but I'm ALWAYS right ( Am I not, redpepper ? )

Err... Say, nice weather we have here eh?

libelle :

or another proposal for the blitz version: the player who runs out of time, loses 15 (or some other number) points, but you still stop and count the points at that time. this way, it's a nice blocking strategy to just get a few points and let the time run out, but you need to have 16 points more than you're opponent to still win the game.

I think that would be a different game. It would force people, not only to win in the end, but to keep a constant lead (or not fall back by more than 15) for the whole duration. Would you take big tickets, knowing that they'll take more time to complete? Would you dare a discontinuous road at the risk of losing longest road if the game ends? Would you keep cards in your hands when others are laying tracks? I think this would reduce the amount of possible winning tactics. You'd HAVE to play a certain way, or your opponents would stop the game early.

You can try it on the board game, without the blitz aspect: play with the normal rules plus this one: at each turn, a player can either play normally (take cards, lay a track or take tickets) or stop the game immediately, at a cost of 15 points. See if you like it, I know I wouldn't.

I like the idea of a play clock! Maybe 2 seconds is a little hard . You have reaction time + System Response Time + Moving a bunch of waggons onto the map ...

But there is one problem. The three actions in t2r differs a lot concerning the amount of time. Drawing Tickets costs more time than placing waggons than drawing cards. So , i think, there is only the possibility of a game clock.

BTW: I like your avatar. And i've seen the avatar of your wife Is there a dash, a vio or even a jack-jack, too

I cant see big differences between a game clock and a play clock (from a "structural problem point of view"). I agree to erps, that the need of time is too different between the possible moves. But i think, a game clock of 3 to 5 minutes is possible to play, in online blitz chess are one-minute-games possible.

I like the idea of a play clock! Maybe 2 seconds is a little hard . You have reaction time + System Response Time + Moving a bunch of waggons onto the map ...

But there is one problem. The three actions in t2r differs a lot concerning the amount of time. Drawing Tickets costs more time than placing waggons than drawing cards. So , i think, there is only the possibility of a game clock.

BTW: I like your avatar. And i've seen the avatar of your wife Is there a dash, a vio or even a jack-jack, too

bye, erps

Ah, but that would be part of the strategy. Same for everyone! Quick decision making would be important. It would also do a service in that it would discourage ticket fiends. Yeah, 2 seconds might be stretching it but perhaps there would be a way to have the timer-start be prompted by the individual's java, when it is ready, to account for the system response time?

Yes, there is a Jack-Jack but he is too young to play at the moment. He's being groomed to take over the #1 slot, however... if Daddy and Mommy can't do it there is hope for the next generation! Already, at 7 months, he is expert at banging his arms on the board, causing the trains to align themselves to his satisfaction, preferably on the floor (when I am losing... ).

I am relatively new to the TTR website; however, I can see tremendous value in several of the suggestions, particularly the rankings for multiplayer games and europe vs usa. I play almost exclusively multiplayer games and think that separating out the statistics would be awesome since the games are significantly different in terms of strategy.

Also, the whole "free" game concept is really interesting as well. It seems to me that a number of players just are opening secondary and tertiary accounts to allow them to do just that; so is it in DOW's interest to change the current system???

Also, as a relatively fast player, I would love to see a faster "timeout" when people leave the game or are unable to play due to connection speed. I Hate waiting, however; 2 seconds would be a little harsh, even 20 seconds would speed some games up significantly!

In regards to the timeclock, I'm pretty certain that will never be implemented since there is a built in lag into everyone's connection (namely dialup - sad but true, some people still use that!) and thus a 2 min on dialup won't be the same.

Brice and I had this conversation quite a while back and I believe his words were that it won't be implemented due to lag.

Motivation: The two-player-matches and games with several participants differ nevertheless strongly in tactics and point assignment. Nearly all Top players play only two-player-matches. Since ticket to ride is a parlor game, it appears to me, that playing with more persons is the actual heart of the game. In addition it is more difficult to gain a high rank with only Multiplayer matches.

Question: if both players in a 2player game are equal (1500 for example) will the winner get the same increase as a 4player game of equal players? I would think you should get more by beating 3 others. Second place should be equal to winning a 2 player game.

In regards to the timeclock, I'm pretty certain that will never be implemented since there is a built in lag into everyone's connection (namely dialup - sad but true, some people still use that!) and thus a 2 min on dialup won't be the same.

I cant see your point. If someone has a slow connection, he probably wont play with game clock. So what? Others dont play 3+ games, but the feature is still implemented....

Would it help or hinder to add the 'longest route' currenly for each player during the game? It isn't like it is a secret, its just when the board gets a lot of trains on it who wants to count all those pieces.

Another pondering...what about shading the route cards that are complete? Granted this would take away those times I "thought" I had the route completed, but forgot one leg. But it would also speed things up as I flip through the cards when I have many. Do you guys think it would take too much of the game management "skill" and not add enough of a conveniance benifit?

You know there IS an element, however elementary, of mastery of what is called the 'fundamentals' of any game. This game is no different. Your proposals would take every bit of the work out of executing a match. Counting your cards, keeping track of route lengths properly, and all that stuff is basic, sure, but something that is mastered as you go along in this game. Sometimes we ALL make mistakes in fundamentals, and DESERVE to lose as a result! I mean, let's keep going... why not have DoW have a suggestion function that keeps you from playing the wrong color you would need later to complete a route!?

My biggest wish is for more destination tickets. It doesn't take long to figure out the most probable route an opponent is trying to fill. I also find that winning a game is impossible if you get stuck with the short haul hub-and-spoke tickets in the center of the country. The scoring is heavily biased in favor of longer station connections because of the exponential growth in scoring as you lay a 5 or 6-car play and the final 10 point bonus for having a long chain without branches. And finally, (speaking as a Carolinian), some of the cities that are not represented on tickets are crazy.

The Mystery Train expansion only added 3 tickets, and they were in the wrong places (in my oh so humble opinion). It also added those crazy bonus points rules, which don't do much for me.

I recommend adding the following tickets. It gives you a larger base to draw from and makes that end of game shuffle less likely to pay off when people simply draw tickets hoping to hit a route they already have (there's a little too much overlap in the existing routes!). It incorporates more of the cities and makes more half-country routes that can be combined to form long chains. Sorry to the Las Vegas residents, but the way the board is laid out, it is too restrictive a city for use as a destination. You can be blocked immediately. All my routes have at least two clear paths as options for completion.

A great way to allow this expansion and leave room for people to try their own ideas would be for the manufacturer to print 10 blank ticket cards that have the same card stock and backs as the others. You could then draw on the face with a magic marker and make your own new destinations. These would slip into the deck and be used just like the existing cards, or left out for tournament play where you want everything to be on an even basis around the world.

By the way, I did a complete analysis of current routes and have it available as backup for fellow geeks who like to look at statistics. But I'm not putting it in this message because it's a lot of lists that will only be of interest to a few. If you want to see it, look here:http://www.wsuccess.com/upload/TTRlist.xls
(There are two tabs at the bottom. Existing tickets is the analysis of the current game from the manufacturer. New tickets updates the information assuming my recommended additions to the ticket list.)